Re: get subjectAltName
Resending with attachment ..
Naveen B.N wrote:
Hello,
I am using Linux.
I am trying to print the subjectAltName present in the certificate,
but i am seeing crash in /lib/libcrypto.so.6
core was generated by `./a.out'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#1 0x0593a786 in X509v3_get_ext_by_OBJ () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#2 0x0593a7ce in X509v3_get_ext_by_NID () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#3 0x08048870 in find_root_cert (in=0x9445a72 , len=1002) at
find_root.c:37
#4 0x080489af in main () at find_root.c:65
Help me to solve this issue. Please guide, if any other alternative to
method to achieve the same
Please find the code used below and certificate is attached.
Thanks and Regards
Naveen
/ Start code ***/int find_root_cert(char
*in,int len)
{
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509_NAME *name;
char *buffer;
X509_EXTENSION *ext=NULL;
char *test;
int pos=0,nid;
cert1=d2i_X509(NULL,in,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
name=X509_get_subject_name(cert1);
buffer=X509_NAME_oneline(name, 0, 0);
if(strstr(buffer,CN=kdc.globaledgesoft.com)==NULL)
return -1;
else
{
* nid=OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName);
pos=X509v3_get_ext_by_NID (cert1,OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName),
-1);
ext=X509v3_get_ext(cert1,pos);
if(ext!=NULL){
test=d2i_ASN1_IA5STRING(ext-value-data,NULL,0);
printf(\n test =%s , test);*
}
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
const unsigned char *in ;
int len,size,ret;
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509 *cert2=NULL;
FILE *fp;
struct stat st;
fp = fopen(kdc.cer,r);
stat ( (const char *)kdc.cer,st);
size = st.st_size;
in=(unsigned char *)malloc(++size);
printf(\n length = %d ,size);
len=fread(in,1,size,fp);
fclose(fp);
printf(\n Len =%d,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
if(find_root_cert(in,len)==0)
printf(\n This is the Root\n);
else
printf(\n No match was found \n);
}
/* End /
kdc.cer
Description: application/x509-ca-cert
get subjectAltName
Hello,
I am using Linux.
I am trying to print the subjectAltName present in the certificate, but
i am seeing crash in /lib/libcrypto.so.6
core was generated by `./a.out'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#1 0x0593a786 in X509v3_get_ext_by_OBJ () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#2 0x0593a7ce in X509v3_get_ext_by_NID () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#3 0x08048870 in find_root_cert (in=0x9445a72 , len=1002) at
find_root.c:37
#4 0x080489af in main () at find_root.c:65
Help me to solve this issue. Please guide, if any other alternative to
method to achieve the same
Please find the code used below.
Thanks and Regards
Naveen
/ Start code ***/int find_root_cert(char
*in,int len)
{
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509_NAME *name;
char *buffer; X509_EXTENSION *ext=NULL;
char *test;
int pos=0,nid;
cert1=d2i_X509(NULL,in,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
name=X509_get_subject_name(cert1);
buffer=X509_NAME_oneline(name, 0, 0);
if(strstr(buffer,CN=kdc.globaledgesoft.com)==NULL)
return -1;
else
{* nid=OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName);
pos=X509v3_get_ext_by_NID (cert1,OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName), -1);
ext=X509v3_get_ext(cert1,pos);
if(ext!=NULL){
test=d2i_ASN1_IA5STRING(ext-value-data,NULL,0);
printf(\n test =%s , test);*
}
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
const unsigned char *in ;
int len,size,ret;
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509 *cert2=NULL;
FILE *fp;
struct stat st;
fp = fopen(kdc.cer,r);
stat ( (const char *)kdc.cer,st);
size = st.st_size;
in=(unsigned char *)malloc(++size);
printf(\n length = %d ,size);
len=fread(in,1,size,fp);
fclose(fp);
printf(\n Len =%d,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
if(find_root_cert(in,len)==0)
printf(\n This is the Root\n);
else
printf(\n No match was found \n);
}
/* End /
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: get subjectAltName
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:40:26PM +0530, Naveen B.N wrote:
Hello,
I am using Linux.
I am trying to print the subjectAltName present in the certificate, but
i am seeing crash in /lib/libcrypto.so.6
core was generated by `./a.out'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#1 0x0593a786 in X509v3_get_ext_by_OBJ () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#2 0x0593a7ce in X509v3_get_ext_by_NID () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#3 0x08048870 in find_root_cert (in=0x9445a72 , len=1002) at
find_root.c:37
#4 0x080489af in main () at find_root.c:65
Help me to solve this issue. Please guide, if any other alternative to
method to achieve the same
Please find the code used below.
First hint: look at the warnings issued by the compiler.
They usually indicate you are doing something wrong.
Thanks and Regards
Naveen
/ Start code ***/int find_root_cert(char
*in,int len)
{
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509_NAME *name;
char *buffer; X509_EXTENSION *ext=NULL;
char *test;
int pos=0,nid;
cert1=d2i_X509(NULL,in,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
name=X509_get_subject_name(cert1);
buffer=X509_NAME_oneline(name, 0, 0);
if(strstr(buffer,CN=kdc.globaledgesoft.com)==NULL)
return -1;
else
{* nid=OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName);
pos=X509v3_get_ext_by_NID (cert1,OBJ_sn2nid(subjectAltName), -1);
/* no need to translate constant string (subjectAltName) to NID
Use the nid constant directly: NID_subject_alt_name
X509v3_get_ext_by_NID() expects a pointer to extensions
X509_get_ext_by_NID() expects a cert as first argument
*/
pos=X509_get_ext_by_NID (cert1, NID_subject_alt_name, -1);
/* need to check for existance of subjectAltName */
if (pos == -1)
ERROR();
ext=X509v3_get_ext(cert1,pos);
Same as above: use X509_get_ext() instead.
The compiler told you about incompatible pointer types. Don't ignore it.
if(ext!=NULL){
test=d2i_ASN1_IA5STRING(ext-value-data,NULL,0);
It is not that easy
The subaltname is tagged as otherName in the kdc.cer
You need to parse the othername, which contains the OID
1.3.6.1.5.2.2
which indicates a DER encoded KRB5PrincipalName
search Google for the OID
Cheers
Christian
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Win CE 6.0 + ARM + openssl
On 21-09-2010 18:48, Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote: Jakob Bohm wrote: 1. The current README.WCE and code assumes that you link with one of two less free libraries (one is LGPL, the other requires reconfiguration of the target device/phone). I wrote my own more minimal library under the OpenSSL license to avoid them both. This obviously implied patching OpenSSL to use the new library rather than one of the two old ones. Why does it mean patching OpenSSL ? wcecompat seems to be just providing some stdlib function not available by default on WCE, so isn't your library just an alternative implementation of those functions ? If not, then why ? The os dependency files in openssl assume specifics of either wcecompat or the other restricted library, I have simply added alternative cases for my simpler cedummy library. My cedummy library provides much fewer libc function replacements than wcecompat, relying instead on windows CE's standard libc and adding just a few missing functions (such as gmtime()). I suggest you put your lib on sourceforge or google code, and just provide the openssl patch. But I think your patch to openssl is much more likely to be accepted if you keep it as small as possible. If it's not small, maybe it's better, in a first step at least, to leave it together with the library on an external repository. Yes, it needs trimming and cleanup to keep the patch minimal, which is why I have not posted it yet. The initial home of the library will probably be on one of our own sites. 2. To simplify installation of my program, I prefer static linking of OpenSSL. This turned up a number of general (not WinCE specific) design issues in EVP and ASN code, resulting in massive bloat of programs that don't use all of OpenSSL. Basically, lots of .o files are pulled in by just-in-case calls (mostly XXX_free() functions), table-driven selection of which code to execute and other such bad practices. Using a number of ad-hoc patches I managed to cut down some of the overhead, but its not very clean or efficient yet. Could you provide this as a separate patch, that you would call openssl code reorganization to optimize for use on embedded platforms ? This part is actually the largest part (in kilobytes) of my private patch. This is not as much about embedded platforms as it is about static linking to openssl (on any platform where a recent openssl shared library is not included by default, including desktop systems). I think this discussion should continue on openssl-dev instead of -users. Maybe it should, I am not subscribed there, as the list description clearly dissuaded library users like myself from using that list. But maybe. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
LNK4078 and LNK4210 linking with x64 static libs
Hi, (please excuse if this is a duplicate, yesterdays posting seems failed) I have problems with warnings from the linker on Windows, indicating that initializers will not be called. I've built 1.0.0a with VS2005, using nt.mak to get static libraries. With x64 I get warnings when linking applications, both openssl.exe and test programs like sha1test.exe. A snippet of output from nmake -f ms\nt.mak: link /nologo /subsystem:console /opt:ref /debug /out:out32\openssl.exe @C:\DOCUME~1\FRYKEN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\nm3B3.tmp LIBCMT.lib(crt0init.obj) : warning LNK4254: section '.CRT' (6020) merged into '.rdata' (4040) with different attributes And when linking our own application on x64/Release platform: libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4078: multiple '.CRT' sections found with different attributes (60500020) libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4210: .CRT section exists; there may be unhandled static initializers or terminators The linker command can be deduced from the following: Creating temporary file c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp with contents [ /OUT:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.exe /INCREMENTAL:NO /MANIFEST /MANIFESTFILE:x64/Release\etnode.exe.intermediate.manifest /DELAYLOAD:oci.dll /DEBUG /PDB:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.pdb /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE /LTCG psapi.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib WS2_32.LIB ADVAPI32.LIB GDI32.LIB USER32.LIB dbghelp.lib ../snibu/logging-log4cxx/msvc/lib/x64/Release/log4cxxs.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/ssleay32.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/libeay32.lib ../snibu/oracle/x64/instantclient_10_2/sdk/lib/msvc/oci.lib ../snibu/zlib/msvc/lib/x64/Release/zlibstat.lib kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ole32.lib oleaut32.lib uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib DelayImp.lib .\x64\Release\CCcServApp.obj ... .\x64\Release\Bas4Bridge.obj ] Creating command line link.exe @c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp /NOLOGO /ERRORREPORT:PROMPT I've done the following to build openssl: cd /d C:\utv\snibu\openssl\x64\release\openssl-1.0.0a call C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\vcvarsall.bat x86_amd64 perl Configure VC-WIN64A --prefix=c:\appl\openssl-1.0.0a\x64\release ms\do_win64a.bat nmake -f ms\nt.mak nmake -f ms\nt.mak install And the file x86_64cpuid.asm mentioned in the warnings starts with the following: defaultrel EXTERNOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.CRT$XCU ALIGN8 DQOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.text code align=64 ... Could somebody help me solve this warning, it seems to me that OPENSSL_cpuid_setup will not be executed. Best regards, Per Frykenvall __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: get subjectAltName
Thank you Christian,
your suggestions helped us to get the position but as you mentioned the
problem
of resolving to kerberos principal name, i tried Google and added a
piece of code
but i am not getting the out put as shown below .
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
#include openssl/sha.h
#include openssl/hmac.h
#include openssl/evp.h
#include openssl/bio.h
#include openssl/buffer.h
#include openssl/x509.h
#include openssl/x509v3.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include unistd.h
#define CERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES 15
#define CERT_INFO_SIZE 10
static char **cert_info_kpn(X509 *x509) {
int i,j;
static char *entries[CERT_INFO_SIZE];
STACK_OF(GENERAL_NAME) *gens;
GENERAL_NAME *name;
ASN1_OBJECT *krb5PrincipalName;
printf(Trying to find a Kerberos Principal Name in
certificate);
gens = X509_get_ext_d2i(x509, NID_subject_alt_name, NULL, NULL);
krb5PrincipalName = OBJ_txt2obj(1.3.6.1.5.2.2, 1);
if (!gens) {
printf(No alternate name extensions);
return NULL; /* no alternate names */
}
if (!krb5PrincipalName) {
printf(Cannot map KPN object);
return NULL;
}
for (i=0,j=0; (i sk_GENERAL_NAME_num(gens))
(jCERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES); i++) {
name = sk_GENERAL_NAME_value(gens, i);
if ( name name-type==GEN_OTHERNAME ) { /* test for
UPN */
if (OBJ_cmp(name-d.otherName-type_id,
krb5PrincipalName)) continue; /* object is not a UPN */
else {
/* NOTE:
from PKINIT RFC, I deduce that stored format for
kerberos
Principal Name is ASN1_STRING, but not sure at 100%
Any help will be granted
*/
unsigned char *txt;
ASN1_TYPE *val = name-d.otherName-value;
ASN1_STRING *str= val-value.asn1_string;
printf(Found Kerberos Principal Name );
if ( ( ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8(txt, str) ) 0) {
printf(ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8() failed: %s,
ERR_error_string(ERR_get_error(),NULL));
} else {
printf(Adding KPN entry: %s,txt);
//entries[j++]= clone_str((const char *)txt);
}
}
}
}
sk_GENERAL_NAME_pop_free(gens, GENERAL_NAME_free);
ASN1_OBJECT_free(krb5PrincipalName);
if(j==0) {
printf(Certificate does not contain a KPN entry);
return NULL;
}
return entries;
}
int find_root_cert(const unsigned char **in,int len)
{
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509_NAME *name;
char *buffer;
X509_EXTENSION *ext=NULL;
char *test;
int pos=0,nid;
cert1=d2i_X509(NULL,in,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
name=X509_get_subject_name(cert1);
buffer=X509_NAME_oneline(name, 0, 0);
if(strstr(buffer,CN=kdc.globaledgesoft.com)==NULL)
return -1;
else
{
#if 0
pos=X509_get_ext_by_NID(cert1,NID_subject_alt_name, -1);
if (pos == -1){
printf(\n pos == -1 \n);
return -1;
}
ext=X509_get_ext(cert1,pos);
if(ext!=NULL){
test=(char *)d2i_ASN1_IA5STRING((ASN1_IA5STRING
**)ext-value-data,NULL,0);
printf(\n test =%s , test);
}
#endif
cert_info_kpn(cert1);
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
const unsigned char *in ;
int len,size,ret;
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509 *cert2=NULL;
FILE *fp;
struct stat st;
fp = fopen(KDC.cer,r);
stat ( (const char *)KDC.cer,st);
size = st.st_size;
in=(unsigned char *)malloc(++size);
printf(\n length = %d ,size);
len=fread((void *)in,1,size,fp);
fclose(fp);
printf(\n Len =%d,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
if(find_root_cert(in,len)==0)
printf(\n This is the Root\n);
else
printf(\n No match was found \n);
}
/* output */
length = 1001
Len =1000
cert=0
cert=86da458 Trying to find a Kerberos Principal Name in
certificateFound Kerberos Principal Name ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8() failed:
error::lib(0):func(0):reason(0)Certificate does not contain a
KPN entry
This is the Root
Thanks in advance .
Regards
Naveen
Christian Hohnstaedt wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:40:26PM +0530, Naveen B.N wrote:
Hello,
I am using Linux.
I am trying to print the subjectAltName present in the certificate, but
i am seeing crash in /lib/libcrypto.so.6
core was generated by `./a.out'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x058b8a03 in OBJ_cmp () from /lib/libcrypto.so.6
#1 0x0593a786 in X509v3_get_ext_by_OBJ
Re: get subjectAltName
Attaching the PEM format certificate used ,
We need to convert it to DER before using it with the below given code.
Command to convert PEM to DER
openssl x509 -inform PEM -in KDC.pem -outform DER -out KDC.cer
Thanks and Regards
Naveen
Naveen B.N wrote:
Thank you Christian,
your suggestions helped us to get the position but as you mentioned
the problem
of resolving to kerberos principal name, i tried Google and added a
piece of code
but i am not getting the out put as shown below .
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
#include openssl/sha.h
#include openssl/hmac.h
#include openssl/evp.h
#include openssl/bio.h
#include openssl/buffer.h
#include openssl/x509.h
#include openssl/x509v3.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include unistd.h
#define CERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES 15
#define CERT_INFO_SIZE 10
static char **cert_info_kpn(X509 *x509) {
int i,j;
static char *entries[CERT_INFO_SIZE];
STACK_OF(GENERAL_NAME) *gens;
GENERAL_NAME *name;
ASN1_OBJECT *krb5PrincipalName;
printf(Trying to find a Kerberos Principal Name in
certificate);
gens = X509_get_ext_d2i(x509, NID_subject_alt_name, NULL,
NULL);
krb5PrincipalName = OBJ_txt2obj(1.3.6.1.5.2.2, 1);
if (!gens) {
printf(No alternate name extensions);
return NULL; /* no alternate names */
}
if (!krb5PrincipalName) {
printf(Cannot map KPN object);
return NULL;
}
for (i=0,j=0; (i sk_GENERAL_NAME_num(gens))
(jCERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES); i++) {
name = sk_GENERAL_NAME_value(gens, i);
if ( name name-type==GEN_OTHERNAME ) { /* test for
UPN */
if (OBJ_cmp(name-d.otherName-type_id,
krb5PrincipalName)) continue; /* object is not a UPN */
else {
/* NOTE:
from PKINIT RFC, I deduce that stored format
for kerberos
Principal Name is ASN1_STRING, but not sure at
100%
Any help will be granted
*/
unsigned char *txt;
ASN1_TYPE *val = name-d.otherName-value;
ASN1_STRING *str= val-value.asn1_string;
printf(Found Kerberos Principal Name );
if ( ( ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8(txt, str) ) 0) {
printf(ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8() failed: %s,
ERR_error_string(ERR_get_error(),NULL));
} else {
printf(Adding KPN entry: %s,txt);
//entries[j++]= clone_str((const char *)txt);
}
}
}
}
sk_GENERAL_NAME_pop_free(gens, GENERAL_NAME_free);
ASN1_OBJECT_free(krb5PrincipalName);
if(j==0) {
printf(Certificate does not contain a KPN entry);
return NULL;
}
return entries;
}
int find_root_cert(const unsigned char **in,int len)
{
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509_NAME *name;
char *buffer; X509_EXTENSION *ext=NULL;
char *test;
int pos=0,nid;
cert1=d2i_X509(NULL,in,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
name=X509_get_subject_name(cert1);
buffer=X509_NAME_oneline(name, 0, 0);
if(strstr(buffer,CN=kdc.globaledgesoft.com)==NULL)
return -1;
else
{ #if 0
pos=X509_get_ext_by_NID(cert1,NID_subject_alt_name, -1);
if (pos == -1){
printf(\n pos == -1 \n);
return -1;
}
ext=X509_get_ext(cert1,pos);
if(ext!=NULL){
test=(char *)d2i_ASN1_IA5STRING((ASN1_IA5STRING
**)ext-value-data,NULL,0);
printf(\n test =%s , test);
}
#endif
cert_info_kpn(cert1);
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
const unsigned char *in ;
int len,size,ret;
X509 *cert1=NULL;
X509 *cert2=NULL;
FILE *fp;
struct stat st;
fp = fopen(KDC.cer,r);
stat ( (const char *)KDC.cer,st);
size = st.st_size;
in=(unsigned char *)malloc(++size);
printf(\n length = %d ,size);
len=fread((void *)in,1,size,fp);
fclose(fp);
printf(\n Len =%d,len);
printf(\n cert=%x , cert1);
if(find_root_cert(in,len)==0)
printf(\n This is the Root\n);
else
printf(\n No match was found \n);
}
/* output */
length = 1001
Len =1000
cert=0
cert=86da458 Trying to find a Kerberos Principal Name in
certificateFound Kerberos Principal Name ASN1_STRING_to_UTF8() failed:
error::lib(0):func(0):reason(0)Certificate does not contain a
KPN entry
This is the Root
Thanks in advance .
Regards
Naveen
Christian Hohnstaedt wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:40:26PM +0530, Naveen B.N wrote:
Hello,
I am using Linux.
I am trying to print the subjectAltName present in the certificate,
but i am seeing crash in
Re: get subjectAltName
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 05:48:07PM +0530, Naveen B.N wrote:
Thank you Christian,
your suggestions helped us to get the position but as you mentioned the
problem
of resolving to kerberos principal name, i tried Google and added a
piece of code
but i am not getting the out put as shown below .
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
#include openssl/sha.h
#include openssl/hmac.h
#include openssl/evp.h
#include openssl/bio.h
#include openssl/buffer.h
#include openssl/x509.h
#include openssl/x509v3.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include unistd.h
#define CERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES 15
#define CERT_INFO_SIZE 10
/*
http://www.h5l.org/manual/HEAD/info/heimdal/Setting-up-PK_002dINIT.html
KRB5PrincipalName ::= SEQUENCE {
realm [0] Realm,
principalName [1] PrincipalName
}
Maybe this is already defined somewhere in OpenSSL - I didn't find it.
*/
typedef struct kdc_princname_st
{
ASN1_GENERALSTRING *realm;
KRB5_PRINCNAME *princname;
} KDC_PRINCNAME;
ASN1_SEQUENCE(KDC_PRINCNAME) = {
ASN1_EXP(KDC_PRINCNAME, realm, ASN1_GENERALSTRING, 0),
ASN1_EXP(KDC_PRINCNAME, princname, KRB5_PRINCNAME, 1)
} ASN1_SEQUENCE_END(KDC_PRINCNAME)
IMPLEMENT_ASN1_FUNCTIONS(KDC_PRINCNAME)
static char **cert_info_kpn(X509 *x509) {
int i,j;
static char *entries[CERT_INFO_SIZE];
STACK_OF(GENERAL_NAME) *gens;
GENERAL_NAME *name;
ASN1_OBJECT *krb5PrincipalName;
printf(Trying to find a Kerberos Principal Name in
certificate);
gens = X509_get_ext_d2i(x509, NID_subject_alt_name, NULL, NULL);
krb5PrincipalName = OBJ_txt2obj(1.3.6.1.5.2.2, 1);
if (!gens) {
printf(No alternate name extensions);
return NULL; /* no alternate names */
}
if (!krb5PrincipalName) {
printf(Cannot map KPN object);
return NULL;
}
for (i=0,j=0; (i sk_GENERAL_NAME_num(gens))
(jCERT_INFO_MAX_ENTRIES); i++) {
name = sk_GENERAL_NAME_value(gens, i);
if ( name name-type==GEN_OTHERNAME ) { /* test for
UPN */
if (OBJ_cmp(name-d.otherName-type_id,
krb5PrincipalName)) continue; /* object is not a UPN */
else {
/* NOTE:
from PKINIT RFC, I deduce that stored format for
kerberos
Principal Name is ASN1_STRING, but not sure at 100%
Any help will be granted
*/
unsigned char *txt;
ASN1_TYPE *val = name-d.otherName-value;
ASN1_STRING *str= val-value.asn1_string;
printf(Found Kerberos Principal Name );
unsigned char * p = str-data;
KDC_PRINCNAME *pn = d2i_KDC_PRINCNAME(NULL, p,
str-length);
KRB5_PRINCNAME *princname = pn-princname;
printf(Realm '%*s'\nNAMETYPE: %ld\n,
pn-realm-length, pn-realm-data,
ASN1_INTEGER_get(princname-nametype));
for (j=0;
jsk_ASN1_GENERALSTRING_num(princname-namestring); j++) {
ASN1_GENERALSTRING *gs =
sk_ASN1_GENERALSTRING_value(princname-namestring,j);
printf([%i] %*s\n, j, gs-length, gs-data);
}
Cheers
Christian
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Problem with rsa_keygen
Hello everybody Several months ago I developed an OpenSSL PKCS#11 engine for Windows XP and it worked ok (it was compiled with MinGW). Now I'm trying to compile it on Linux (Debian 5 with GCC 4.3.1) but I have the next problem: In the overwritten function *rsa_keygen* (whose signature is *int rsa_keygen (RSA *rsa, int bits, BIGNUM *e, BN_GENCB *cb)*) always when the function ends (after the return instrucction) System reports me *Segmentation Fault*. What I do is: 1. I generate the RSA key with PKCS#11. 2. I get the public part of the key from the device. 3. I store this information in the *rsa* variable (I don't do memory allocation or *RSA_new ()* invoke, I supose rsa variable is initialized). If I do memory allocation or I invoke *RSA_new ()* I get the same error. 4. Finally I return 1 if the process ends ok and -1 in case of error (PKCS#11 error). And when the function ends I get Segmentation fault and I don't know why. The OpenSSL version is 1.0.0a (I compiled it from source code). Thanks.
Install/Add static engine
Hi. I have written an engine and have openssl installed (Ubuntu 10.04). Now I'd like to compile and install my engine as a static engine that can be used by openssl. What are the commands for this and what steps shall I take? Thanks.
Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
Hi there: Yes - the right way is to correctly configure the extensions in the openssl.cnf used on the CA, and have the SAN and Subject NOT be used out of the request, but be input from the CA. If you need to see how this might be done, we've got a tutorial at: http://www.carillon.ca/library/openssl_testca_howto_1.3.pdf Even within a corporate environment, you can have problems with malicious insiders, and if they can trick someone outside of your organisation to trust you as a CA, then you could get in all manner of trouble if you trust user input. (I presume you have at least a rudimentary way to tie a given private key to a Subscriber? - that is what is important, not the contents of the CSR) Best Regards, Patrick. On 2010-09-20, at 2:12 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: I am mostly using openssl to sign certificates for corporate servers for corporate users only. So I am the only one using it to issue certificates. As much as possible I want all certificates to have a common CA- that way corporate end users only need to manually install the public cert for the CA itself. I can leave the copy_extensions = copy option disabled by default and just enable when specifically needed. However, if there is another way to do this then I would like to know. The only other option I can see if to configure a Microsoft CA or some other CA that does not use openssl. -Thanks On 09/20/2010 12:07 PM, Patrick Patterson wrote: Hey there: It should be noted that this is an EXCEEDINGLY BAD thing to do, since it more or less removes any control that the CA has over the certificates that it issues, and unless the Registration Authority is VERY careful about examining all of the requests in detail, all manner of evil and bad things could happen, including: - The CA could inadvertantly create a SubCA, if the request has basicConstraints: CA:TRUE and the appropriate keyUsage fields set. - The CA could sign for SAN values that it has not proofed. - The CA could sign for keyUsage and ExtendedKeyUsage values which it may not grant or wish to grant the Subscriber Certificate - The CA could sign asserting that the end-entity certificate conforms to a policy that it does not (leading to potentially serious legal implications for the CA including charges of fraud and misrepresentation). All that the attacker has to do with this option enabled is supply the CA with an request with each or all of those extensions present and appropriately configured. All in all, unless this is a test CA that is clearly marked as non- trustworthy, then this is probably not at all what you want to do, and could have potentially serious implications not only at a technical level, but at a liability and organisational level. Best Regards, Patrick. On September 19, 2010 09:20:51 pm Gaiseric Vandal wrote: FYI, enabling the following line in openssl.cnf has resolved the problem. copy_extensions = copy From: Gaiseric Vandal [mailto:gaiseric.van...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 7:09 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: RE: Confusion about subject alternative names Some additional info: My openssl.cnf file includes the following --- - --- policy = policy_anything [ policy_anything ] countryName = optional stateOrProvinceName = optional localityName= optional organizationName= optional organizationalUnitName = optional commonName = supplied emailAddress= optional subjectAltName = optional .. # req_extensions = v3_req # The extensions to add to a certificate request [ req_distinguished_name ].. subjectAltName = Subject Alternate Name subjectAltName_default = www.foo.com --- - --- Openssl is configured as a CA. I had added the entries for subjectAltName.I do get prompted for this when creating a certificate signing request (CSR.). When I submit a CSR created by MS Exchange shell,the policy can NOT include subjectAltName = required- So clearly MS Exchange is not using the same structure for this as openssl. I am pretty sure I have the correct syntax for subjectAltName in openssl.cnf. If I try adding a field in for planet it is just ignored.So it seams clear that openssl is treating subjectAltName as a valid entry. The default openssl.cnf included --- - --- [ usr_cert ] .. #
Re: Problem with rsa_keygen
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:41:30PM +0200, Nacho ?lvarez wrote: Hello everybody Several months ago I developed an OpenSSL PKCS#11 engine for Windows XP and it worked ok (it was compiled with MinGW). Now I'm trying to compile it on Linux (Debian 5 with GCC 4.3.1) but I have the next problem: In the overwritten function *rsa_keygen* (whose signature is *int rsa_keygen (RSA *rsa, int bits, BIGNUM *e, BN_GENCB *cb)*) always when the function ends (after the return instrucction) System reports me *Segmentation Fault*. You overwrote you return address on the stack most probably by accessing a locally declared array out of bounds. Cheers Christian __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
REGD : openssl vulnerability CVE-2010-2939 : double in ssl3_get_key_exchange
Hi OpenSSL Folks, I'm evaluating our product for this vulnerability. http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-...@openssl.org/msg28049.html http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-...@openssl.org/msg28049.html I have a few questions : 1. The vulnerability says You are right : there is a double free bug in the function *ssl3_get_key_exchange* which leads to crash if an error occurs. The bug is in line 1510 of s3_clnt.c where we forget to set the variable bn_ctx to NULL after freeing it and this leads to the double free error when BN_CTX_free is called a second time on line 1650. In 0.9.7d and prior I see no reference to bn_ctx or BN_CTX_free QUESTION: Since I do not see references to bn_ctx or BN_CTX_free in 0.9.7d can I assume that the vulnerability does not exist on that version? 2. The link says OpenSSL versions 1.0.0a, 0.9.8, 0.9.7, and possibly other versions, are affected when Elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) is enabled QUESTION: Since I don't see BN_CTX_free being used in 0.9.7d and prior, do they mean that 7e, f , g have these definitions ? 3. I checked in the opensslconf.h file for #define OPENSSL_NO_ECDH to check if ECDH is enabled or not QUESTION: is this the correct way to find if ecdh is enabled or not? Would be great if I can get a response to these thanks aparajita
Subject alternative name problem
Hi all,
I have to generate a KDC certificate containing Subject alternative name
extension using openssl which includes the following details:
**
The KDC's X.509 certificate MUST contain name of the realm for that
KDC and the principal name of the KDC (defined in RFC 1510bis) as the
SubjectAltName version 3 extension. Below is
the definition of this version 3 extension, as specified by the X.509
standard:
subjectAltName EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX GeneralNames
IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-subjectAltName
}
GeneralNames ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..MAX) OF GeneralName
GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] OtherName,
...
}
OtherName ::= SEQUENCE {
type-idOBJECT IDENTIFIER,
value [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY type-id
}
For the purpose of specifying a Kerberos principal name, the value
in OtherName MUST be a KerberosName, defined as follows:
KerberosName ::= SEQUENCE {
realm [0] Realm,
principalName [1] PrincipalName
}
This specific syntax is identified within subjectAltName by setting
the type-id in OtherName to krb5PrincipalName, where (from the
Kerberos specification) we have
krb5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso (1)
org (3)
dod (6)
internet (1)
security (5)
kerberosv5 (2) }
krb5PrincipalName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { krb5 2 }
*
Please suggest SAN details that must be included in openssl.cnf for
generating KDC certificate containing above mentioned details as a part
of Subject Alternative Extension in kdc certificate.
I have generated KDC certificate by including following lines in
openssl.cnf:
# Add id-pkinit-san (pkinit subjectAlternativeName)
subjectAltName=otherName:1.3.6.1.5.2.2;SEQUENCE:kdc_princ_name
[kdc_princ_name]
realm = EXP:0, GeneralString:${ENV::REALM}
principal_name = EXP:1, SEQUENCE:kdc_principal_seq
[kdc_principal_seq]
name_type = EXP:0, INTEGER:1
name_string = EXP:1, SEQUENCE:kdc_principals
[kdc_principals]
princ1 = GeneralString:krbtgt
Is is enough to include the above lines in opensssl.cnf while generating kdc
certificate
to add Subject Alternative Extension which satisfies the requirements mentioned
in the beginning?
Please guide me.
Regards,
Vinay
princ2 = GeneralString:${ENV::REALM}
Understanding: EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo
Hello,
I try to understand the encryption of a private rsa key. It was generated
with
openssl genpkey -aes-256-cbc -algorithm rsa -out mykey.enc
-pkeyopt rsa_keygen_bits:2048
(pw: 'admin', file attached)
according to pkcs#8 the result is
EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
encryptionAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier {{KeyEncryptionAlgorithms}},
encryptedData EncryptedData
}
parsing through 'encryptionAlgorithm' i got
openssl asn1parse - in mykey.enc -strparse 4
0: d=0 hl=2 l=73 cons : SEQUENCE
2: d=1 hl=2 l=9 prim : OBJECT: PBES2
13: d=1 hl=2 l=60 cons : SEQUENCE
15: d=2 hl=2 l=27 cons : SEQUENCE
17: d=3 hl=2 l=9 prim :OBJECT: PBKDF2
28: d=3 hl=2 l=14 cons :SEQUENCE
30: d=4 hl=2 l=8 prim :OCTET STRING
[ HEX DUMP ]:7C4B1587B12A7705
40: d=4 hl=2 l=2 prim :INTEGER: 0800
44: d=2 hl=2 l= 29 cons :SEQUENCE
46: d=3 hl=2 l=9 prim :OBJECT :aes-256-cbc
57: d=3 hl=2 l=16 prim :OCTET STRING
[ HEX DUMP ]: 4850BA5F76BA9CD5574F0121D8C0C657.
as i understood the rare documenation, offset 30 is the salt for PBKDF2
and offset 57 is the IV for aes.
as result of PKCS5_PBKDF2_HMAC_SHA1 feeded with the salt from above,
pw:'admin' and ic:2048 (offset 40 above) i got:
K = dc55f54889fe64153fb1b181e89ec5c08a864ef5f777d6aa1d0be9ff82dd8b3a
iv = 11be3aafd0768fd9fdbc7880936ad2c4
decryption with this key (and any of those ivs) fails.
How can i reproduce the data in offset 57? if its really an iv why is it
written explicitly if it could be calculated a result of PBKDF2?
Does anyone have some hints?
thanks a lot.. stephan
mykey.enc
Description: Binary data
Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
Hi there: Yes - the right way is to correctly configure the extensions on the CA, and have the SAN and Subject NOT be used out of the request, but be input from the CA. If you need to see how this might be done, we've got a tutorial at: http://www.carillon.ca/library/openssl_testca_howto_1.3.pdf Even within a corporate environment, you can have problems with malicious insiders, and if they can trick someone outside of your organisation to trust you as a CA, then you could get in all manner of trouble if you trust user input. (I presume you have at least a rudimentary way to tie a given private key to a Subscriber? - that is what is important, not the contents of the CSR) Best Regards, Patrick. On 2010-09-20, at 2:12 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: I am mostly using openssl to sign certificates for corporate servers for corporate users only. So I am the only one using it to issue certificates. As much as possible I want all certificates to have a common CA- that way corporate end users only need to manually install the public cert for the CA itself. I can leave the copy_extensions = copy option disabled by default and just enable when specifically needed. However, if there is another way to do this then I would like to know. The only other option I can see if to configure a Microsoft CA or some other CA that does not use openssl. -Thanks On 09/20/2010 12:07 PM, Patrick Patterson wrote: Hey there: It should be noted that this is an EXCEEDINGLY BAD thing to do, since it more or less removes any control that the CA has over the certificates that it issues, and unless the Registration Authority is VERY careful about examining all of the requests in detail, all manner of evil and bad things could happen, including: - The CA could inadvertantly create a SubCA, if the request has basicConstraints: CA:TRUE and the appropriate keyUsage fields set. - The CA could sign for SAN values that it has not proofed. - The CA could sign for keyUsage and ExtendedKeyUsage values which it may not grant or wish to grant the Subscriber Certificate - The CA could sign asserting that the end-entity certificate conforms to a policy that it does not (leading to potentially serious legal implications for the CA including charges of fraud and misrepresentation). All that the attacker has to do with this option enabled is supply the CA with an request with each or all of those extensions present and appropriately configured. All in all, unless this is a test CA that is clearly marked as non- trustworthy, then this is probably not at all what you want to do, and could have potentially serious implications not only at a technical level, but at a liability and organisational level. Best Regards, Patrick. On September 19, 2010 09:20:51 pm Gaiseric Vandal wrote: FYI, enabling the following line in openssl.cnf has resolved the problem. copy_extensions = copy From: Gaiseric Vandal [mailto:gaiseric.van...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 7:09 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: RE: Confusion about subject alternative names Some additional info: My openssl.cnf file includes the following --- - --- policy = policy_anything [ policy_anything ] countryName = optional stateOrProvinceName = optional localityName= optional organizationName= optional organizationalUnitName = optional commonName = supplied emailAddress= optional subjectAltName = optional .. # req_extensions = v3_req # The extensions to add to a certificate request [ req_distinguished_name ].. subjectAltName = Subject Alternate Name subjectAltName_default = www.foo.com --- - --- Openssl is configured as a CA. I had added the entries for subjectAltName.I do get prompted for this when creating a certificate signing request (CSR.). When I submit a CSR created by MS Exchange shell,the policy can NOT include subjectAltName = required- So clearly MS Exchange is not using the same structure for this as openssl. I am pretty sure I have the correct syntax for subjectAltName in openssl.cnf. If I try adding a field in for planet it is just ignored.So it seams clear that openssl is treating subjectAltName as a valid entry. The default openssl.cnf included --- - --- [ usr_cert ] .. # This stuff is for
Re: Subject alternative name problem
Vinay Kumar L wrote:
Hi all,
I have to generate a KDC certificate containing Subject alternative
name extension using openssl which includes the following details:
**
The KDC's X.509 certificate MUST contain name of the realm for that
KDC and the principal name of the KDC (defined in RFC 1510bis) as the
SubjectAltName version 3 extension. Below is
the definition of this version 3 extension, as specified by the X.509
standard:
subjectAltName EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX GeneralNames
IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-subjectAltName
}
GeneralNames ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..MAX) OF GeneralName
GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] OtherName,
...
}
OtherName ::= SEQUENCE {
type-idOBJECT IDENTIFIER,
value [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY type-id
}
For the purpose of specifying a Kerberos principal name, the value
in OtherName MUST be a KerberosName, defined as follows:
KerberosName ::= SEQUENCE {
realm [0] Realm,
principalName [1] PrincipalName
}
This specific syntax is identified within subjectAltName by setting
the type-id in OtherName to krb5PrincipalName, where (from the
Kerberos specification) we have
krb5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso (1)
org (3)
dod (6)
internet (1)
security (5)
kerberosv5 (2) }
krb5PrincipalName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { krb5 2 }
*
Please suggest SAN details that must be included in openssl.cnf for
generating KDC certificate containing above mentioned details as a
part of Subject Alternative Extension in kdc certificate.
I have generated KDC certificate by including following lines in
openssl.cnf:
# Add id-pkinit-san (pkinit subjectAlternativeName)
subjectAltName=otherName:1.3.6.1.5.2.2;SEQUENCE:kdc_princ_name
[kdc_princ_name]
realm = EXP:0, GeneralString:${ENV::REALM}
principal_name = EXP:1, SEQUENCE:kdc_principal_seq
[kdc_principal_seq]
name_type = EXP:0, INTEGER:1
name_string = EXP:1, SEQUENCE:kdc_principals
[kdc_principals]
princ1 = GeneralString:krbtgt
Is is enough to include the above lines in opensssl.cnf while generating kdc
certificate
to add Subject Alternative Extension which satisfies the requirements mentioned
in the beginning?
Please guide me.
Regards,
Vinay
princ2 = GeneralString:${ENV::REALM}
Understanding: EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo
Hello,
I try to understand the encryption of a private rsa key. It was generated
with
openssl genpkey -aes-256-cbc -algorithm rsa -out mykey.enc
-pkeyopt rsa_keygen_bits:2048
(pw: 'admin', file attached)
according to pkcs#8 the result is
EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
encryptionAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier {{KeyEncryptionAlgorithms}},
encryptedData EncryptedData
}
parsing through 'encryptionAlgorithm' i got
openssl asn1parse - in mykey.enc -strparse 4
0: d=0 hl=2 l=73 cons : SEQUENCE
2: d=1 hl=2 l=9 prim : OBJECT: PBES2
13: d=1 hl=2 l=60 cons : SEQUENCE
15: d=2 hl=2 l=27 cons : SEQUENCE
17: d=3 hl=2 l=9 prim :OBJECT: PBKDF2
28: d=3 hl=2 l=14 cons :SEQUENCE
30: d=4 hl=2 l=8 prim :OCTET STRING
[ HEX DUMP ]:7C4B1587B12A7705
40: d=4 hl=2 l=2 prim :INTEGER: 0800
44: d=2 hl=2 l= 29 cons :SEQUENCE
46: d=3 hl=2 l=9 prim :OBJECT :aes-256-cbc
57: d=3 hl=2 l=16 prim :OCTET STRING
[ HEX DUMP ]: 4850BA5F76BA9CD5574F0121D8C0C657.
as i understood the rare documenation, offset 30 is the salt for PBKDF2
and offset 57 is the IV for aes.
as result of PKCS5_PBKDF2_HMAC_SHA1 feeded with the salt from above,
pw:'admin' and ic:2048 (offset 40 above) i got:
K = dc55f54889fe64153fb1b181e89ec5c08a864ef5f777d6aa1d0be9ff82dd8b3a iv =
11be3aafd0768fd9fdbc7880936ad2c4
decryption with this key (and any of those ivs) fails.
How can i reproduce the data in offset 57? if its really an iv why is it
written explicitly if it could be calculated a result of PBKDF2?
Does anyone have some hints?
thanks a lot.. stephan
mykey.enc
Description: Binary data
LNK4078 and LNK4210 linking with x64 static libs
Hi, I've built 1.0.0a on Windows with VS2005, using nt.mak to get static libraries. With x64 I get warnings when linking applications, both openssl.exe and test programs like sha1test.exe. A snippet of output from nmake -f ms\nt.mak: link /nologo /subsystem:console /opt:ref /debug /out:out32\openssl.exe @C:\DOCUME~1\FRYKEN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\nm3B3.tmp LIBCMT.lib(crt0init.obj) : warning LNK4254: section '.CRT' (6020) merged into '.rdata' (4040) with different attributes And when linking our own application on x64/Release platform: libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4078: multiple '.CRT' sections found with different attributes (60500020) libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4210: .CRT section exists; there may be unhandled static initializers or terminators The linker command can be deduced from the following: Creating temporary file c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp with contents [ /OUT:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.exe /INCREMENTAL:NO /MANIFEST /MANIFESTFILE:x64/Release\etnode.exe.intermediate.manifest /DELAYLOAD:oci.dll /DEBUG /PDB:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.pdb /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE /LTCG psapi.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib WS2_32.LIB ADVAPI32.LIB GDI32.LIB USER32.LIB dbghelp.lib ../snibu/logging-log4cxx/msvc/lib/x64/Release/log4cxxs.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/ssleay32.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/libeay32.lib ../snibu/oracle/x64/instantclient_10_2/sdk/lib/msvc/oci.lib ../snibu/zlib/msvc/lib/x64/Release/zlibstat.lib kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ole32.lib oleaut32.lib uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib DelayImp.lib .\x64\Release\CCcServApp.obj ... .\x64\Release\Bas4Bridge.obj ] Creating command line link.exe @c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp /NOLOGO /ERRORREPORT:PROMPT I've done the following to build openssl: cd /d C:\utv\snibu\openssl\x64\release\openssl-1.0.0a call C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\vcvarsall.bat x86_amd64 perl Configure VC-WIN64A --prefix=c:\appl\openssl-1.0.0a\x64\release ms\do_win64a.bat nmake -f ms\nt.mak nmake -f ms\nt.mak install And the file x86_64cpuid.asm mentioned in the warnings starts with the following: defaultrel EXTERNOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.CRT$XCU ALIGN8 DQOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.text code align=64 ... Could somebody help me solve this warning, it seems to me that OPENSSL_cpuid_setup will not be executed. Best regards, Per Frykenvall __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: EDIT FIELDS ON CSR
Hi, Thank you very much for your answer, so is no way to edit the filed of a csr not? But please could your explainme more detailed how can I bind the public key or just do your recomendation? I really appreciate your help. Patrick Patterson-3 wrote: On September 11, 2010 10:58:44 am kummers wrote: Please, help me: How can I edit a CSR, i neew to chane the filds, for axample. edit the common name, I've been looking but have not found anything in the forum You cannot edit a CSR - it is a signed structure - why don't you just re- generate it with the correct values? Also - there is absolutely NOTHING that says that you have to keep the information in a CSR when you generate the X.509 certificate - so if you need to change the Subject DN so that when you generate the Certificate get a different value, just tell OpenSSL (or whatever CA software you are using) to do that. (of course, the caveat with the above is that you need a good way to bind the public key in the PKCS#10 or SPKAC structure with the subscriber named in the Subject of the X.509, but you weren't just trusting a self asserted value in a CSR to prove that, were you? :) Have fun! -- Patrick Patterson President and Chief PKI Architect, Carillon Information Security Inc. http://www.carillon.ca __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/EDIT-FIELDS-ON-CSR-tp29673141p29775548.html Sent from the OpenSSL - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: LNK4078 and LNK4210 linking with x64 static libs
I had got the same problem. I just simply deleted that section EXTERNOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.CRT$XCU ALIGN8 DQOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.text code align=64 from the asm file because the extern OpenSSL_cpuid_setup is never referenced. Good luck On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:57 AM, perfry per.frykenv...@naturskyddsforeningen.se wrote: Hi, I've built 1.0.0a on Windows with VS2005, using nt.mak to get static libraries. With x64 I get warnings when linking applications, both openssl.exe and test programs like sha1test.exe. A snippet of output from nmake -f ms\nt.mak: link /nologo /subsystem:console /opt:ref /debug /out:out32\openssl.exe @C:\DOCUME~1\FRYKEN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\nm3B3.tmp LIBCMT.lib(crt0init.obj) : warning LNK4254: section '.CRT' (6020) merged into '.rdata' (4040) with different attributes And when linking our own application on x64/Release platform: libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4078: multiple '.CRT' sections found with different attributes (60500020) libeay32.lib(x86_64cpuid.obj) : warning LNK4210: .CRT section exists; there may be unhandled static initializers or terminators The linker command can be deduced from the following: Creating temporary file c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp with contents [ /OUT:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.exe /INCREMENTAL:NO /MANIFEST /MANIFESTFILE:x64/Release\etnode.exe.intermediate.manifest /DELAYLOAD:oci.dll /DEBUG /PDB:../deploy/execs/x64/Release/etnode.pdb /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE /LTCG psapi.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib WS2_32.LIB ADVAPI32.LIB GDI32.LIB USER32.LIB dbghelp.lib ../snibu/logging-log4cxx/msvc/lib/x64/Release/log4cxxs.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/ssleay32.lib ../snibu/openssl-1.0.0a/x64/Release/lib/libeay32.lib ../snibu/oracle/x64/instantclient_10_2/sdk/lib/msvc/oci.lib ../snibu/zlib/msvc/lib/x64/Release/zlibstat.lib kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ole32.lib oleaut32.lib uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib DelayImp.lib .\x64\Release\CCcServApp.obj ... .\x64\Release\Bas4Bridge.obj ] Creating command line link.exe @c:\utv\ccbas4\ccbase\x64\Release\RSP132444832.rsp /NOLOGO /ERRORREPORT:PROMPT I've done the following to build openssl: cd /d C:\utv\snibu\openssl\x64\release\openssl-1.0.0a call C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\vcvarsall.bat x86_amd64 perl Configure VC-WIN64A --prefix=c:\appl\openssl-1.0.0a\x64\release ms\do_win64a.bat nmake -f ms\nt.mak nmake -f ms\nt.mak install And the file x86_64cpuid.asm mentioned in the warnings starts with the following: defaultrel EXTERNOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.CRT$XCU ALIGN8 DQOPENSSL_cpuid_setup section.text code align=64 ... Could somebody help me solve this warning, it seems to me that OPENSSL_cpuid_setup will not be executed. Best regards, Per Frykenvall __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to "There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc." If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click "allow exception" in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click allow exception in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
Hi Chris, how are you installing the root CA on the client machines? In windows once you double click the root certificate you get a message dialog box and click the install certificate button. On the following screen press next and on the next screen tell it to install the certificate to the Trusted Root Certificate Authorities, hit next then finish. You should get a Windows dialog warning saying that you are adding a root certificate, and you just say yes. Now the other possible problem is that on the server certificate that you created you aren't including the Authority Information Access (AIA) field. This is crucial so that your customers only have to install the root CA and implicitly trust any certificates signed by the root. On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Chris Rider chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com wrote: We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click allow exception in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
Hi Chris: Can you post the certificates in question? My guess is that you don't have the various extensions set according to the PKIX standards that the Browsers are expecting. Thanks. Patrick. On 2010-09-22, at 2:57 PM, Chris Rider wrote: We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click allow exception in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org --- Patrick Patterson President and Chief PKI Architect Carillon Information Security Inc. http://www.carillon.ca tel: +1 514 485 0789 mobile: +1 514 994 8699 fax: +1 450 424 9559 __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
For now, I've just copied the CA's public .crt file to a public_html type directory and downloading on the client ~ from there, depending on whether I use FireFox or IE, I go into the respective certificates manager and import the one I downloaded. I've been very deliberate in making sure it actually gets installed under the root/trusted category, and not some other category. I haven't investigated the AIA field... (didn't even know about it) Would that be specified when creating the CA's keys? Is that best specified in my CA's cnf file somewhere? Barring all else, it seems to me like the browser is hanging up on the fact that the CA's certificate is self-signed. (??) -Chris Hugo Garza wrote: Hi Chris, how are you installing the root CA on the client machines? In windows once you double click the root certificate you get a message dialog box and click the install certificate button. On the following screen press next and on the next screen tell it to install the certificate to the Trusted Root Certificate Authorities, hit next then finish. You should get a Windows dialog warning saying that you are adding a root certificate, and you just say yes. Now the other possible problem is that on the server certificate that you created you aren't including the Authority Information Access (AIA) field. This is crucial so that your customers only have to install the root CA and implicitly trust any certificates signed by the root. On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Chris Rider chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com mailto:chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com wrote: We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click allow exception in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org mailto:majord...@openssl.org __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
On 09/22/10 11:57 AM, Chris Rider wrote: We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. take your selfsigned CA public certificate, name it something.cer, and place it on a web server, making sure the webserver understands that .cer is mime type application/x-x509-ca-cert give your clients the link to that .CER ... they have to accept it and add it to their trusted root certificate storage, the specifics of doing this vary by web browser (current versions of MSIE have made this harder than it should be) once that .cer is installed in the browsers trusted root authorities, then anything signed by that CA will be accepted. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
Thanks for the link. I still need the CA to load the SAN parameter from the request- it looks like a lot of the defaults would be to copy the e-mail address into the SAN field. I don't use openssl at this point to generate certs for users. No one besides me uses openssl ca on this server anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from using openssl on their own machine to create whatever keys and certs they want anyway- I could create CA configuration for microsoft.com and use it to create send Secure e-mail from microsoft. If I start dealing with user certificates then I would probably need a more full featured CA solution that allows web-based user requests and key escrow.I have started tinkering with the DogTag (opensource version of redhat cert server) but so far not sure if it supports the SAN extensions properly. I may have to suck it up and just install the MS CA services to have something that plays nice with MS Exchange and other MS services. I try to avoid MS Solutions because they tend to optimize standards. On 09/22/2010 10:31 AM, Patrick Patterson wrote: Hi there: Yes - the right way is to correctly configure the extensions in the openssl.cnf used on the CA, and have the SAN and Subject NOT be used out of the request, but be input from the CA. If you need to see how this might be done, we've got a tutorial at: http://www.carillon.ca/library/openssl_testca_howto_1.3.pdf Even within a corporate environment, you can have problems with malicious insiders, and if they can trick someone outside of your organisation to trust you as a CA, then you could get in all manner of trouble if you trust user input. (I presume you have at least a rudimentary way to tie a given private key to a Subscriber? - that is what is important, not the contents of the CSR) Best Regards, Patrick. On 2010-09-20, at 2:12 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: I am mostly using openssl to sign certificates for corporate servers for corporate users only. So I am the only one using it to issue certificates. As much as possible I want all certificates to have a common CA- that way corporate end users only need to manually install the public cert for the CA itself. I can leave the copy_extensions = copy option disabled by default and just enable when specifically needed. However, if there is another way to do this then I would like to know. The only other option I can see if to configure a Microsoft CA or some other CA that does not use openssl. -Thanks On 09/20/2010 12:07 PM, Patrick Patterson wrote: Hey there: It should be noted that this is an EXCEEDINGLY BAD thing to do, since it more or less removes any control that the CA has over the certificates that it issues, and unless the Registration Authority is VERY careful about examining all of the requests in detail, all manner of evil and bad things could happen, including: - The CA could inadvertantly create a SubCA, if the request has basicConstraints: CA:TRUE and the appropriate keyUsage fields set. - The CA could sign for SAN values that it has not proofed. - The CA could sign for keyUsage and ExtendedKeyUsage values which it may not grant or wish to grant the Subscriber Certificate - The CA could sign asserting that the end-entity certificate conforms to a policy that it does not (leading to potentially serious legal implications for the CA including charges of fraud and misrepresentation). All that the attacker has to do with this option enabled is supply the CA with an request with each or all of those extensions present and appropriately configured. All in all, unless this is a test CA that is clearly marked as non- trustworthy, then this is probably not at all what you want to do, and could have potentially serious implications not only at a technical level, but at a liability and organisational level. Best Regards, Patrick. On September 19, 2010 09:20:51 pm Gaiseric Vandal wrote: FYI, enabling the following line in openssl.cnf has resolved the problem. copy_extensions = copy From: Gaiseric Vandal [mailto:gaiseric.van...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 7:09 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: RE: Confusion about subject alternative names Some additional info: My openssl.cnf file includes the following --- - --- policy = policy_anything [ policy_anything ] countryName = optional stateOrProvinceName = optional localityName= optional organizationName= optional organizationalUnitName = optional commonName = supplied emailAddress= optional subjectAltName = optional .. # req_extensions = v3_req # The extensions to add to a certificate request [ req_distinguished_name ].. subjectAltName = Subject Alternate Name
Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
On 2010-09-22, at 6:38 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: Thanks for the link. I still need the CA to load the SAN parameter from the request- it looks like a lot of the defaults would be to copy the e-mail address into the SAN field. Why? Why not just have the CA just put the appropriate value into the end Certificate? I don't use openssl at this point to generate certs for users. No one besides me uses openssl ca on this server anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from using openssl on their own machine to create whatever keys and certs they want anyway- I could create CA configuration for microsoft.com and use it to create send Secure e-mail from microsoft. If you don't use OpenSSL to generate certs, what tool are you using to Sign them then (generating and signing certs are pretty much the same option - perhaps you meant that you don't use OpenSSL to generate keypairs and CSRs?)? If I start dealing with user certificates then I would probably need a more full featured CA solution that allows web-based user requests and key escrow. I have started tinkering with the DogTag (opensource version of redhat cert server) but so far not sure if it supports the SAN extensions properly. I may have to suck it up and just install the MS CA services to have something that plays nice with MS Exchange and other MS services. I try to avoid MS Solutions because they tend to optimize standards. I'm not sure what you are talking about - DogTag (and RedHat cert server) definitely can be configured to do just about anything you may need. And OpenSSL has absolutely no problem generating any certs that a Microsoft environment may need. Having OpenSSL generate certs that are usable for Exchange is rather trivial. Anyways - Have fun. --- Patrick Patterson President and Chief PKI Architect Carillon Information Security Inc. http://www.carillon.ca tel: +1 514 485 0789 mobile: +1 514 994 8699 fax: +1 450 424 9559 __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: Self-signed CA problem for internal web application
Hi Chris: On 2010-09-22, at 4:13 PM, Chris Rider wrote: For now, I've just copied the CA's public .crt file to a public_html type directory and downloading on the client ~ from there, depending on whether I use FireFox or IE, I go into the respective certificates manager and import the one I downloaded. I've been very deliberate in making sure it actually gets installed under the root/trusted category, and not some other category. I haven't investigated the AIA field... (didn't even know about it) Would that be specified when creating the CA's keys? Is that best specified in my CA's cnf file somewhere? Yes - it would. Barring all else, it seems to me like the browser is hanging up on the fact that the CA's certificate is self-signed. (??) Things that would make the browser hang include: CA cert not including basicConstraints: CA=True, or keyUsage not including certSign. and User Certs that DO include either of those values. Also, what could be happening is a mismatch between AKI and SKI values in the CA and Server certs. That's why I requested you to send along a copy of the certs that you are using - the values need to be set correctly, just having one key signed by the other, which happens to be self signed, is not enough. Unless you have extensively edited your openssl.cnf file, you are probably not generating correct CA or end entity certs. Have fun. Patrick. -Chris Hugo Garza wrote: Hi Chris, how are you installing the root CA on the client machines? In windows once you double click the root certificate you get a message dialog box and click the install certificate button. On the following screen press next and on the next screen tell it to install the certificate to the Trusted Root Certificate Authorities, hit next then finish. You should get a Windows dialog warning saying that you are adding a root certificate, and you just say yes. Now the other possible problem is that on the server certificate that you created you aren't including the Authority Information Access (AIA) field. This is crucial so that your customers only have to install the root CA and implicitly trust any certificates signed by the root. On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Chris Rider chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com mailto:chris.ri...@messagenetsystems.com wrote: We have a client/server architecture based product that needs to allow SSL communication between our server (CentOS) and various clients' web browsers (and additionally, other devices, but that's beyond the scope of this post). We've been able to get SSL working in both of two different ways (self-signed certificate self-signed CA with certificates signed by that) -- so that is not the issue. Rather, our whole issue is that we don't want the end-users to confronted with a big scary browser message that says something akin to There's a Problem With Security! / Allow Exception, etc. If they must install a certificate or two, that would be acceptable, though. So I thought that creating my own CA to sign certificates with would be a solution apparently not. I'm now getting browser messages that say the certificate's issuer is not trusted!!! Very frustrating. So, as I said, I've created my own CA (using this link as a guide: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2005/11/10/be-your-own-ca/ ), and can sign my own certificates without problem. I then install the root certificate, followed by a server certificate signed by that CA. And, while I can click allow exception in the browser to make it all work, that is not the desired way. We just want to be able to have the end-user install a trusted root certificate and everything just work from there. Testing in IE and FireFox nets the same big scary warning message, no matter what combination of fields I use in the CSR, etc. We really don't want to go with a third party CA like VeriSign, for example -- not so much because of the cost, but we just don't want to deal with updating countless remote installations of our product whenever the certificate expires. Not to mention the support that would be associated with doing that! The other issue is that some/most of these installations do not have outside internet connectivity with which to query the CA's (for CRL's, or whatever). We really need to manage our own certificates, all in all but without these warning messages. Is it possible? If so, what am I missing? -- Chris Rider, Systems Architect MessageNet Systems __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
RE: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
I use openssl to create certs for servers only, not for users. If I create a key with openssl, then create a CSR with openssl req, it would prompt me for a subjectAltName.Openssl ca will sign CSR's from MS Exchange but not would include the subjectAltName until I enabled copy extensions. When I create a CSR on MS Exchange, the key is automatically created as well. In the PDF you suggested, there is the following examples... ___ The following section in openssl-ext.cnf shows how extensions compatible with the above can be produced in a certificate generated by OpenSSL: [ usr_id_ext ] basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = critical, digitalSignature nsComment = Do Not trust ID Cert for CertiPath interop TEST purposes only subjectKeyIdentifier = hash authorityKeyIdentifier = keyid,issuer subjectAltName = email:$ENV::EMAILADDR authorityInfoAccess = @aia_points crlDistributionPoints = @crl_dist_points certificatePolicies = ia5org, @my_medium_sw_policy [ usr_sign_ext ] basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = critical, digitalSignature, nonRepudiation extendedKeyUsage = emailProtection, anyExtendedKeyUsage nsComment = Do Not trust Signature Cert for CertiPath interop only subjectKeyIdentifier = hash authorityKeyIdentifier = keyid,issuer subjectAltName = email:$ENV::EMAILADDR authorityInfoAccess = @aia_points crlDistributionPoints = @crl_dist_points certificatePolicies = ia5org, @my_medium_sw_policy ___ To me this looks like it is configured to pick up the e-mail address from the CSR. Or maybe I need a separate openssl-ext.cnf file? My openssl.cnf file includes the following (I think I put some of this in the original post...) ___ [ policy_anything ] ... subjectAltName = optional ... # req_extensions = v3_req # The extensions to add to a certificate request [ req_distinguished_name ] countryName = Country Name (2 letter code) countryName_default = US countryName_min = 2 countryName_max = 2 ... # I added the following line subjectAltName = Subject Alternate Name subjectAltName_default = www.foo.com [ v3_req ] # Extensions to add to a certificate request basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = nonRepudiation, digitalSignature, keyEncipherment ___ If I set the policy to require a SAN, openssl ca will reject the CSR's from MS Exchange, but I think it will be OK with the CSR's from openssl req. I am not sure if this means that openssl.cnf is not configured to have the ca create certs with v3 extensions? Re DogTag- I don't think I have tried having DogTag sign a SAN CSR from MS Exchange. It had trouble signing SAN CSR's that I generated with openssl req. My understanding had been that not all CA's supports SAN anyway. This is probably something for the pki-us...@redhat.com forum. I suspect that the problem may have been with openssl not DogTag. Apart from the SAN issue, OpenSSL has been able to handle creating keys and certs to use with MS Apps, or signing CSR's created by MS IIS or MS Exchange. (sometimes you have to convert certs from PEM to DER or vice versa.) Thanks for your help. -Original Message- From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Patterson Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:48 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved On 2010-09-22, at 6:38 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: Thanks for the link. I still need the CA to load the SAN parameter from the request- it looks like a lot of the defaults would be to copy the e-mail address into the SAN field. Why? Why not just have the CA just put the appropriate value into the end Certificate? I don't use openssl at this point to generate certs for users. No one besides me uses openssl ca on this server anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from using openssl on their own machine to create whatever keys and certs they want anyway- I could create CA configuration for microsoft.com and use it to create send Secure e-mail from microsoft. If you don't use OpenSSL to generate certs, what tool are you using to Sign them then (generating and signing certs are pretty much the same option - perhaps you meant that you don't use OpenSSL to generate keypairs and CSRs?)? If I start dealing with user certificates then I would probably need a more full featured CA solution that allows web-based user requests and key escrow.I have started tinkering with the DogTag (opensource version of redhat cert server) but so far
Re: Confusion about subject alternative names - resolved
Hi there: See my answer inline: On 2010-09-22, at 8:06 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: I use openssl to create certs for servers only, not for users. If I create a key with openssl, then create a CSR with openssl req, it would prompt me for a subjectAltName.Openssl ca will sign CSR's from MS Exchange but not would include the subjectAltName until I enabled copy extensions. When I create a CSR on MS Exchange, the key is automatically created as well. In the PDF you suggested, there is the following examples... ___ The following section in openssl-ext.cnf shows how extensions compatible with the above can be produced in a certificate generated by OpenSSL: [ usr_id_ext ] basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = critical, digitalSignature nsComment = Do Not trust ID Cert for CertiPath interop TEST purposes only subjectKeyIdentifier = hash authorityKeyIdentifier = keyid,issuer subjectAltName = email:$ENV::EMAILADDR authorityInfoAccess = @aia_points crlDistributionPoints = @crl_dist_points certificatePolicies = ia5org, @my_medium_sw_policy [ usr_sign_ext ] basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = critical, digitalSignature, nonRepudiation extendedKeyUsage = emailProtection, anyExtendedKeyUsage nsComment = Do Not trust Signature Cert for CertiPath interop only subjectKeyIdentifier = hash authorityKeyIdentifier = keyid,issuer subjectAltName = email:$ENV::EMAILADDR authorityInfoAccess = @aia_points crlDistributionPoints = @crl_dist_points certificatePolicies = ia5org, @my_medium_sw_policy ___ To me this looks like it is configured to pick up the e-mail address from the CSR. No, they get them from environment variables of the shell that you are using (ENV::EMAILADDR says to get the value for that out of a shell environment variable called EMAILADDR. If you read the entire howto, you would see several shell scripts that help you create exactly what it is that you are trying to create (including ones for Devices, and Microsoft Communications Services (or whatever they are calling them these days) servers). Or maybe I need a separate openssl-ext.cnf file? If you follow the steps in the docs, you should get an OpenSSL configuration for a CA that allows you to do everything that you would want to, and more. My openssl.cnf file includes the following (I think I put some of this in the original post...) ___ [ policy_anything ] ... subjectAltName = optional ... # req_extensions = v3_req # The extensions to add to a certificate request [ req_distinguished_name ] countryName = Country Name (2 letter code) countryName_default = US countryName_min = 2 countryName_max = 2 ... # I added the following line subjectAltName = Subject Alternate Name subjectAltName_default = www.foo.com [ v3_req ] # Extensions to add to a certificate request basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = nonRepudiation, digitalSignature, keyEncipherment ___ If I set the policy to require a SAN, openssl ca will reject the CSR's from MS Exchange, but I think it will be OK with the CSR's from openssl req. I am not sure if this means that openssl.cnf is not configured to have the ca create certs with v3 extensions? Don't set the policy - set up your openssl.cnf files to correctly populate the extensions. You should NOT have any mention of SAN in either the req_distinguished_name section or the policy section. Instead, you should have the correct values being populated into the SAN in your own version of the v3_ext section. Re DogTag- I don't think I have tried having DogTag sign a SAN CSR from MS Exchange. It had trouble signing SAN CSR's that I generated with openssl req. My understanding had been that not all CA's supports SAN anyway. This is probably something for the pki-us...@redhat.com forum. I suspect that the problem may have been with openssl not DogTag. No - just about everything supports SAN, all you have to do is configure your CA correctly. I have yet (in over 10 years of playing around with PKI) to run into any CA that does NOT handle SAN. Most will not get it out of the Subject DN (since it is a horrible, horrible idea, and definitely not in line with best practice) of the Certificate Request, but everything will correctly handle it when building a certificate. Even ancient versions of OpenSSL could handle all of the various different kinds of values that you could put in SAN, although you had to be fairly proficient in encoding
